Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 14, 2012 2:30pm-3:00pm PDT

2:30 pm
2:31 pm
2:32 pm
2:33 pm
2:34 pm
>> good afternoon. i am a senior planner with the planning department. i am here making this presentation to you on behalf of my colleagues. this is a hearing to receive comment on the draft environmental impact report for the san francisco overlooked residential project. it was published on may 2, 2012. the proposed project includes construction of 34 dwelling units and 68 parking spaces. in 13 buildings. staff is not here to -- for comment today. comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing. the document will include responses to all written
2:35 pm
comments that we receive on the eir, as well as revisions. this is not a hearing to consider approval or disapproval of the project. that hearing will follow certification of the eir. comments today should be directed to the adequacy and accuracy of the information contained in the draft eir. commoners should speak slowly and clearly so that the court reporter can -- commentaries should speak slowly and could be said the court reporter. after hearing comments from the general public, we will take any comments from the commissioners on the draft eir. the public comment period it began on may 2, 2012, and extend until 5:00 tuesday, to 19th, 2012. this concludes my presentation.
2:36 pm
i respectfully request that the public hearing be open. >> thank you. i am calling some speaker cards. i will call a bunch of names at one time. [reading names] >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am sometimes known as jack dougherty. my wife and i have owned a two- unit building at 315-317 for 40 years now. we know the neighborhood fairly well. i am here today to articulate to you why i think the draft environmental impact report is
2:37 pm
in adequate and i intend to address to areas that are of particular interest to me, namely parking and traffic as it relates to fire safety. i have not previously filed any written comments, but i brought my written comments with me today. there is, i believe, nine copies there. one for the file and one for each of the commissioners. basically, before i get into parking and traffic, there is a bit of a need for some context about this proposal. first, the important critical fact is that public transportation to this area is flat out terrible. in fact, if this development or
2:38 pm
to be approved, as proposed, a person living in the 10-unit town house building at the westerly edge of the project would have to walk over half a mile to get to the nearest bus stop. it is hilly terrain both ways. on a rainy day, it becomes difficult. as a practical matter, at anybody who has ever lived in this area, and i know this is not a popular thing to say, they would agree that you absolutely need a car, an automobile, to live and function in this particular neighborhood. that is the first bit of context i wanted to point out.
2:39 pm
talking about later, crestmont drive, at the point where it passes by my house, all the way down to the start of the proposed subdivision, is only 26 feet wide. parking is allowed on both sides of the street. it may not be ideal, but it is absolutely necessary. the original subdivision, as approved, approved two-unit buildings with five bedrooms and only two garage spaces. people have to park on the streets. >> thank you very much. your time is up. >> i did not know i had time. thank you. >> mr. president, just to be clear, everyone has up to three
2:40 pm
minutes. >> i live at 409 crestmont drive, directly behind where the proposed development would be built. i would like to reiterate that this is -- it is very difficult to get around. my comments are on the transportation section of the eir. that is a section from page 93- 118. i notice that several of the methodologies used included spot observations. the spot observations were at times when they were not relevant. for instance, oftentimes, the observations for from the hours of 6:00 until 8:00 in the afternoon. it tells us very little about parking. a lot of people come home from work after 8:00.
2:41 pm
frequently, i will see parking is not fold from 6:00 until 8:00. -- full from 6:00 until 8:00. i would like to respond to the area is adequately served by fire response. i am not quite sure how people came up with that. i will talk to you about an incident that occurred in my house in april of 2006. we had a dryer fire at that time. it was frightening, at one point, and we call the fire department. it took them 10 minutes to get to my house. if we had not been able to put that fire out, the house would have burned down. the house is in that area are right next to each other. possibly, more than my house
2:42 pm
would have burned down. those are the comments i wanted to make. thank you very much. president fong: let me call a couple more names. pamela, jennifer, paul, samuel. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the president of the homeowners' association. my address is 407 crestmont drive. the hoa is opposed to this project and its current form. it has expressed this in a letter to the planning commission members. in regards to the eir, i would like to ask that the following comment be addressed. in the report on page 14, reference is made to a sewer
2:43 pm
drain line traveling along the southern boundary of the proposed site. further investigation of the integrity of this wind is recommended -- of this line is recommended. there are eight measures recommended to stabilize the hillsides, which may have potential significant effects on the environment. these were not analyzed as required by ceqa. the new work roadways serving the proposed development -- due to the extraordinary construction, the city has convened a review committee. this committee reviewed the previous estimate project and provided a number of items to be included in the investigation report. the committee will be meeting
2:44 pm
again shortly and the neighbors are so planning commission to require the planning department to incorporate and respond to the comments and additional mitigation measures required by the committee. finally, on page 35, the proposed project site plan, edition on a set of stairs at the eastern end of the proposed project from the new road to the lower portion of the site. it is unclear how these stairs terminated -- terminate towards a fifth avenue. the would like a closer examination of that, please. >> good afternoon. i live that 475 crestmont drive, san francisco.
2:45 pm
the homeowners' association would like to see several explanations and alternatives added to the eir. we would consider a small cluster of homes. this is a relatively flat area that would have significantly less impact on the community. we would prefer no building alternative at all, if possible. the developer should explain why alternatives b and c were not economically feasible. the western portion of the site would also not be feasible. in as much as rejection of alternatives ba dn -- b and c are based on economic feasibility, the eir must provide construction cost and projected sales. thank you.
2:46 pm
president fong: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am a resident of the building on the north side of the complex. looking at the transit network, the 36 bus is the closest bus. and there is a walk along cre stmont. from time to time, muni threatens to cut the 36 line entirely. concerning the eir section 4, it says there are no active or inactive fault in the immediate proximity of the fault. there could be unmapped faults.
2:47 pm
new faults are found all the time. a previously unknown fault was discovered there 10 years ago. there is no guarantee that a fault does not exist near the site. earthquake and used landslides is low. the apartments or in the north east of the project site. this is a big concern for residents. there are some elderly residents on fixed incomes who fear damage to the building might force them to have to move. the eir notes there have been slides behind kirkland heights. the whole area is prone to slides. this was in 1910.
2:48 pm
it has been sliding a long time. back in the early 1990's, it in the middle of the night, and we were awakened by a loud knocking and shouts. this landslides completely covered a pickup truck and slammed into the side of the building. this is north of the swale. fortunately, no one was injured. a large slide could cause fatalities. for the project site, the area is made up of rotten rock. disturbing this a vulnerable area with heavy construction is not a good idea. i do not trust the effectiveness of these mitigation measures. stabilizing one small step and expecting the whole rest of the area to remain the same seems like wishful thinking. thank you.
2:49 pm
president fong: thank you. >> my name is jennifer and i am a homeowner on crestmont drive. i appreciate you giving me the chance to speak as a regular person. as a bit of background, the site proposed is zoned for the density that it has because originally, the street was supposed to connect down to the corridor. if you look at old maps, the street was supposed to connect and that area was zoned for density. that road was never built. crestmont is a dead-end. the zoning is not matching the street and traffic flow. i has been a homeowner for 19 years and i am shocked and
2:50 pm
appalled that the city is thinking of approving a project this scale and magnitude of san francisco overlooked at the end of our dead-end street. we purchased our home across from the forest in the quiet neighborhood of forest knolls. given that our home is on a dead end, we knew traffic would be light and our son could grow up playing safely in the street. if san francisco overlook were built at its current proposed scale, there would be an additional 60 cars attempts to drive in and out of our street and rush hour timing would be impacted and congested. the vast majority of houses have driveways too short to park in. residents must park on the side of the street for various reasons.
2:51 pm
they have to have a 24-hour nurse aid. this is acknowledged in the eir. if two cars approach head-on, when the car must pull over to let the other one pass. this occurs frequently. some turns on these streets are blind corners as well. today, this has not been -- and the traffic flow is very light. if you put 60 or 70 more card, the street to become a very congested and dangerous during rush hour. the number of cars trying to pass each other. at a community meeting, the developer said to me that his studies show that one
2:52 pm
additional car per hour would be driving. i see that he has changed that to peak hours, up to 91 cars per hour. i guess he did a little bit more work. our neighborhood is gone to be changed forever into a noisy -- is going to be changed forever. my son has grown up in our home and he plays in the street all his life. there are many neighborhoods where children play in the streets currently. on our block along, we have six young children. they all played in the street. but they will not be able to play safely. i am strongly against the proposed massive scale of the
2:53 pm
san francisco over the development. -- overlook development. it will greatly affect our way of life and change our neighbor and forever in an extremely negative way. thank you. president fong: a couple more cards. [reading names] >> good afternoon. i am the chairman of the architectural control committee. i am a research psychologist by trade. i am the past chief of planning for the state department and consultant to the legislature. i will put this map here.
2:54 pm
can this be seen? good. to keep your mind focused. one thing has to be known, and it has become clear that this site is not two-dimensional. i am just going to speak about the architectural control committee guidelines and how they affect this project. i believe my testimony in writing. when the planned unit development was created, the authorized a committee to maintain the character of the neighborhood. when i came on to the board about 10 years ago, i realized
2:55 pm
it was vague. i looked at the existing buildings and this is basically what we but like to see. they are almost always two-story buildings with two or three parking spaces. this is not quite adequate, but it is ok, because there is no building on the east side of the street. the owners have the opportunities to park over there. the architectural control guidelines adopted by the association in 2004 are simple and clear. the height limit of 20 feet above the road this is what i wanted to show you.
2:56 pm
the other things are parking with two cars. i will end right there. the design is in violation. there was no attempt to go through our process. if there had been, we may of been able to talk about the use of the common areas side of the route. -- road. thank you very much for your attention. coke's mr. president, if i could point out, if we could remind everyone that they are here today to speak to the adequacy of the environmental document and not the project, but there are not they like it, don't like it. that will come later. before you today is the adequacy and completeness of the environmental review document. president fong: thank you for reminding us of that.
2:57 pm
>> good afternoon. i am a resident of crestmont drive. throughout the draft eir, we are presented with a number of the theoretical models and superficial observations. i want to focus partially on traffic and safety issues contained for section c and g of the draft eir. the impact of the project on pedestrian traffic on page 111 is seriously amiss characterized. we are told that 15 new pedestrian trips can be accommodated on existing sidewalk adjacent to the project. there is no recognition of the fact that the existing sidewalks are steep, narrow, uneven, and frankly, dangerous.
2:58 pm
no one uses them. almost all pedestrian traffic is in the street. under these circumstances, but predicted a doubling of traffic poses a considerable risk to pedestrians. that is not considered at all in the draft eir. this section on page 259, it makes no mention of the fact that the street is the main play area for children. the homes have no backyards and the front yards. doubling the traffic at peak hours doubles the risk for kids playing in the street. this is no were addressed in the draft eir. he either is the quality of life issue or the safety issue, given the poor sight lines and the blind curves. do we need the tragedy of injured children for the city to see the rest of doubling the population and traffic at the lower end of this narrow and winding street? the emergency vehicle access and
2:59 pm
the hazards to residents will be trapped in the cul-de-sac during an emergency and ignored in the latter. the fire department study was flawed and not carried out under real-life conditions, which exist daily. it is not even mentioned in the eir that the city's largest fire apparatus is unable to access the site. not mentioned anywhere in the draft eir is the fate of residents trapped in the cul-de- sac during an emergency. no vehicles can accept -- exit the area. it is a one-way street. the project has no provision for pedestrian escape routes down hill away from the property in case of fire, earthquake, or landslide. landslide or fire.